Will we ever see a 27" 2560x1600?

I would like a 2560x1600 monitor but the 30" models are so expensive...

The 3" lost from the 30" is pretty much all vertical space and not really much horizontal space, some but not much.The dpi of a 30" and 27" are very similar, the size reduction is mostly from chopping off the extra rows of pixels.

I doubt you'll ever see a 27" with a 2560x1600 resolution since everything is going to 16:9 and if you did it would probably be a tiny bit less than the price of the 30" but not by much.

OP, 2560x1600 is 16:10 and 27" displays have a 16:9 AR. For a 27" display, the next step up would be 3840x2160. And at the SID show, LG confirmed they are working on a consumer 27" 2160p IPS monitor.

Ashok0 said:

OP, 2560x1600 is 16:10 and 27" displays have a 16:9 AR. For a 27" display, the next step up would be 3840x2160. And at the SID show, LG confirmed they are working on a consumer 27" 2160p IPS monitor.

Click to expand...

Wow... that would be NUTS. Got a link? I'm not having much luck offhand with Google.

There really isn't much info available but LG released this promo image for their upcoming product line for 2012? 13? A 27" display @ 166ppi would have to be 3840x2160.

*drools* - the only problem I have with these is: trying to convince the wife to let me buy one

munkle said:

The 3" lost from the 30" is pretty much all vertical space and not really much horizontal space, some but not much.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the problem... I need vertical resolution (but not portrait orientation).

Ashok0 said:

OP, 2560x1600 is 16:10 and 27" displays have a 16:9 AR.

Click to expand...

They do at the moment, but that wasn't always the case (27" 1920x1200), and may not be the only aspect ratio available in the future.

For a 27" display, the next step up would be 3840x2160. And at the SID show, LG confirmed they are working on a consumer 27" 2160p IPS monitor.

Click to expand...

That would be great, but I run into the same issue - 16:10 is better for what I use my PC for so I'd be wanting a 3840x2400 monitor...

brod said:

That would be great, but I run into the same issue - 16:10 is better for what I use my PC for so I'd be wanting a 3840x2400 monitor...

Click to expand...

Find a refurbished IBM T221, then.

3840x2160 > 2560x1600. A 16:10 option would be nice certainly, but 16:9 at this res would be a lot less restrictive than 1920x1080 is..

munkle said:

The 3" lost from the 30" is pretty much all vertical space and not really much horizontal space, some but not much.The dpi of a 30" and 27" are very similar, the size reduction is mostly from chopping off the extra rows of pixels.

I doubt you'll ever see a 27" with a 2560x1600 resolution since everything is going to 16:9 and if you did it would probably be a tiny bit less than the price of the 30" but not by much.

Click to expand...

The 3" lost is a common misconception in regard to resolution and ppi.

While the 30" has +80px top and +80 px bottom vs the 27" -- the 30" does not have any more pixels across the width than the 27" , its pixels are just that much larger.

The 80px top and bottom size 'gap' would be much smaller size-wise at the same pixel sizes --> 75 inches top and .75 inches bottom (3/4inch top and bottom) 1.49" total to be exact if both were 108.8ppi.

Another way to look at it on more equal terms is that if you moved the 30" panel back enough until its width (and ppi) looked equal to the 27" to your viewing perspective, there would be .75" peeking out top and bottom (about the diamter of a dime coin) in relation to the 27" screen, 80px tall each.

-----
A 27" 2560x1440 panel sized up to 30" 2560x1600 sized ppi would be 29.19" diagonal.
..
A 30" 2560x1600 panel sized down to 27" 2560x1440 sized ppi would be 27.75" diagonal.

http://www.3dalchemist.com/hardware-info/pixel-densities.htm

I wish companies were still making 4:3 monitors. I would jump all over a 2560x1920 IPS LED.